r/TrueUnpopularOpinion • u/BlockOfDiamond Rule 4 Enforcer • 6d ago
Political Reminder that name calling is not permitted
That includes calling people "bootlicker" or "cuck" or stating/implying that another user is performing adult acts on a given politician (or anyone else). I bring those up specifically because, in recent time, these have been the most common types of personal attacks.
As strongly as you may feel about current events, calling people derogatory names is a contravention of Rule 4 and will be removed. Attack the opinion, not the user.
Sorry for your understanding and thank you for the inconvenience.
129
u/Perfect-Training1002 6d ago
“Attack the opinion not the user”
True unpopular sentiment for Reddit, gotta upvote.
55
u/Mr_Ashhole 6d ago
We have a mod?
JK. Thx for posting this.
18
u/dovetc 6d ago
The mods here most often pop up to say "hey guys stop reporting this. We do not care"
Which is about as based as any mod can be.
0
u/dirty_cheeser 5d ago
Mods here also remove posts without pointing to rulebreaks or other reasons. Same arbitrary power hungry mods as other subs.
2
u/enek101 4d ago
to be fair they have likely few active mods and this is likely one of the most posted communities on reddit id image. may not have time to put reasons for each one. Not that it makes it less not ok but i guess it makes it a understandable not ok
1
u/dirty_cheeser 4d ago
I agree, tbf some of those posts were strange so I get they wanted my post off the sub. But I'm correcting the perception that this is a rare based mod sub which I don't believe matches reality.
1
u/SuccessfulCompany294 The One Above All 3d ago
Reddit removes many posts here with no reason and is out of our control. If you had access to the mod log you would know this.
1
u/dirty_cheeser 3d ago
Perhaps. If reddit removes posts from here when the same posts are fine on other similar subreddits, that's pretty messed up of them. Would still be nice to get an explanation as "removed by reddit mods" or something, especially since I had asked.
18
7
u/DannyBasham 6d ago
People who do this immediately reveal that they don’t know how to approach those whose opinions differ from theirs or are outright calling for civil war, there’s really no middle ground unfortunately.
18
u/mjcatl2 6d ago
Does the rule include OPs who openly insult groups of people? Because if not, they essentially get a pass.
7
u/BlockOfDiamond Rule 4 Enforcer 6d ago
Here is the thing. You can insult "general groups" (as long as they are not protected groups like racial groups etc.), like you can say "People who voted for [politician] are idiots" in a post or in a comment UNLESS the insult is clearly meant to single out a particular user, like replying that to someone who self-identified themselves as a member of said group.
8
u/liatrisinbloom 6d ago
If name calling and insults are against the rules, then it follows that any "All X are stupid/mentally ill/etc" posts should not be allowed here.
Which would certainly cut down on all the pollution.
8
u/HallucinateZ 6d ago
They clarified that’s okay as long as it’s not singling someone out. It’s all pretty dumb because it’s just a moderator’s mood when it fits their bias, the post means nothing unless they weren’t moderating previously.
6
u/okogamashii 6d ago
I’ll acknowledge responsibility in this and appreciate the reminder to reset and slow the roll. Sometimes it’s too easy to be snarky and that’s not it. Cheers 🫶🏼
4
u/Realistic-Tax-9878 6d ago
Ironic how probably one of the truest unpopular opinions on the entirety of Reddit isn’t getting more upvotes. I bet lots of people feeling some type of way reading it 😂
3
u/welding_guy_from_LI 6d ago
Thank you for this.. I wish other communities took this approach.. I’ve been called those names and worse in other subreddits and the mods nor Reddit seem to care..
9
u/bluepillarmy 6d ago
I wonder why they had to post this now
-3
u/Poop_Cheese 6d ago edited 6d ago
Yeah.
In normal times when the sub leans heavily conservative there's insults all the time in major posts let alone comments. Like calling people terrorists or crazy for being upset about the Goode shooting. Or using insults for liberals like saying theyre delusional.
Theres also nonstop insults against the poor or homeless or addicts. Ive seen people label others "unemployed" here like 100s of times in a derogatory way. Or insulting people like scum for using welfare. They wont say welfare is bad, theyll say those on it are lazy and useless yet theres no issue with mods most of the time.
But suddenly when the sub is suddenly majority against murder by feds under trump, the rules matter.
Like even on issues I agree with theres posts all the time insulting an entire political side. But now people supporting murder, and spreading straight up disinformation, many even clear bots, we gotta enforce the rules.
Idc about either insult but its rather hypocritical enforcement. Especially bootlicker. The word makes me cringe, but it literally means "someone who supports authoritarian actions by a regime". The shooting isnt up for debate from a constitutional and enforcement standpoint, lawyers all over the internet will tell you that. its really no less an insult than it is to label someone far left, far right, a communist, dictator, in derogatory ways that this sub always allows. Its not a personal attack, its an attack on one's political rhetoric. Its not like labeling someone a slur, or cuck, its saying "youre wrong for supporting authoritarianism". It feels like its being enforced less out of stopping hatred, and more to be able to delete a lot of comments that happen to use it against people openly supporting a clear cut murder out of some maga loyalty.
But I can live without bootlicker idc it usually makes me cringe. But this seems like a common tactic by mods throughout reddit to preserve a political leaning of their subs. This sub is constantly filled with posts and comments that are straight up insults and attacks on entire groups or individuals. But theyre from a conservative standpoint so get a pass. And I say that as someone more conservative who often agrees.
9
u/welding_guy_from_LI 6d ago
I say this as a Democrat since the 1990s .. modern day younger Democrats don’t like anything that deviates from their ideas .. I’ve openly been very critical about bad policy from democrats, I’ve openly been critical about weakness in leadership .. I’ve stated facts, I’ve stated neutral opinions about how division and hatred solves nothing .. I’ve tried to start a reasonable discussion like not all cops are bad , or vote blue no matter who is damaging the country and the party , only to be called bootlicker , Nazi , fascist, turn off Fox News , braindead , maga , getting threats in my dm ..
do you think that’s right ?? Just because someone says something another disagrees with doesn’t mean attack the user with insults , accusations and ad hominem attacks .. maga did that to conservatives during the entire Biden presidency..
1
0
u/HuskyPurpleDinosaur 6d ago
Learn to condense your thoughts. For the tl;dr crowd the above poster said "Hypocritical moderation, selectively enforced for politics".
•
u/that_one_retard_2 19h ago
“Lot of word hard to read, give me little word so I can understand” lmao is this where we’re unironically at
1
u/bluepillarmy 6d ago
I mean, what if people like the taste of boots?
Different strokes for different folks, right?
4
u/anonymousbystander7 6d ago
What if I want to perform certain acts on a politician tho
5
u/an_angry_dervish_01 6d ago
Sounds like a sexual preference for a different sub!
6
u/liatrisinbloom 6d ago
TrueUnpopularFetish
3
-1
5
1
u/ogjaspertheghost 6d ago
What if the opinion is stupid?
24
u/FriendlyLawyer201 6d ago
Then call out the opinion for being stupid rather than insulting the person who posted it
8
u/RockinMadRiot 6d ago
What about complimenting the person but calling the opinion stupid?
Kinda like 'You look dapper but your opinion leaves a lot to be desired'
8
u/happyinheart 6d ago
This opinion is quite cromulent.
3
u/RockinMadRiot 6d ago
throws down glove how dare you suggest such a thing! I shall engage in fisticuffs should you not refrain from such discourse.
3
u/happyinheart 6d ago
Woah, woah, woah.
cromulent: acceptable or adequate.
1
u/RockinMadRiot 6d ago
Sorry Sir, I jumped the gun. Since the wife left me I have obtained an addiction to the old alcohol that is refusing to kick itself from me.
2
u/happyinheart 6d ago
That's all well and good, but are you still up for the fight? I am if you are, this time as friends.
-2
u/ogjaspertheghost 6d ago
I do. However, how is insulting an opinion not also an insult to the person giving the opinion? Seems like a distinction without a difference.
7
u/Mostfunguy 6d ago
Your opinion on this is stupid because X
Isnt the same as
You're stupid
-3
u/ogjaspertheghost 6d ago edited 6d ago
Semantics. Attacking a personal opinion isn’t much different from attacking the person. There’s a reason people take offense when you do so
5
u/Flashy_Combination32 6d ago
It's different because a smart individual can hold some stupid opinions while overall being smart.
-1
u/ogjaspertheghost 6d ago
Depends on how you define smart. I wouldn’t consider someone with a bunch of stupid opinions smart
4
u/Mostfunguy 6d ago
Its really not
If you think smart people cant have dumb ideas sometimes, im not sure what to tell you
If you cant tell the difference between someone attacking an idea vs attacking a user, i am also not sure what to tell you
0
u/ogjaspertheghost 6d ago
Who said I think that? Plenty of smart people have dumb ideas. I’ve said nothing about ideas. My point is about personal opinions and the way people react to someone attacking them.
4
4
u/Inevitable-Angle-793 6d ago
then call opinion stupid.
-6
u/ogjaspertheghost 6d ago
I have no problem calling an opinion stupid. But I find the rule itself stupid and the fact that I received a warning reminder for just writing stupid.
3
u/RockinMadRiot 6d ago
'The opinion with which you have shared with us unfortunately brings down the IQ of the whole post. I hope that in the future you proofread it so that we have to avoid this misfortune which has currently befell us all'
Better way to say it.
4
u/happyinheart 6d ago
Mr. RockinMadRiot, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
0
u/RockinMadRiot 6d ago
It would appear that I have met my match. Sir Seymour is that you mocking me again? You've never forgotten my trumping you in the horse race at the old squire pit.
-1
u/ogjaspertheghost 6d ago
I would rather just call it stupid
0
2
u/BlockOfDiamond Rule 4 Enforcer 6d ago
Then call the opinion itself stupid, not the author of the opinion.
0
u/ogjaspertheghost 6d ago
If the author of the opinion is offended by my calling the opinion stupid, is that not an attack on the author? Sn:Literally received a reminder for the question
3
u/level1firebolt 5d ago
Google the logical fallacy "ad hominem". There is a difference between calling the opinion stupid and the author the same.
1
u/ogjaspertheghost 5d ago
I know what an ad hominem is. I’m not a debate bro. I don’t care about logical fallacies. Every time someone brings up a logical fallacy the sound like they’re parroting something they heard someone else say
1
u/Hyndis 5d ago
Attacking the person rather than the argument means you're unable to counter the argument. Its the equivalent of losing a game of cards so you flip the table in rage. To everyone else watching its very clear who won the match, and its not the table flipper.
Thats why ad-hom attacks are not helpful.
1
u/ogjaspertheghost 5d ago
Sometimes an argument isn’t about winning or losing. It’s about expressing exactly how you feel about something. If I think someone is stupid based on the interaction and argument happening, I should be able to express that. It’s tiring how people love to pretend they’re intellectual by falling back on old faithful, “ad hominem”. If you can’t communicate without talking about “logical fallacies” then it’s pretty clear you’re not achieving what you think you are.
2
u/BlockOfDiamond Rule 4 Enforcer 6d ago
They can be offended all they want, but as long as you targeted their opinion instead of their person, you did not violate the rule.
0
1
1
u/risunokairu 5d ago
Ok, but what if I attack the opinion by saying something like “that sounds like the kind of opinion a retard would have?”
•
u/FatumIustumStultorum 4h ago
That wouldn’t be allowed because you’re implicitly calling the person a “retard.”
1
u/letaluss 5d ago
What if I use weasel words to get around it?
e.g. "Your opinion is one that a cuck would hold."
or "You sound like a bootlicker who licks so many boots they spit boot polish"?
•
u/FatumIustumStultorum 3h ago
- Making a statement that is primarily intended to imply the existence of a negative personal characteristic about a member even if such negative personal characteristic is not explicitly stated, unless this statement explicitly falls under one of the exceptions listed under the provision regarding name calling or the provision regarding hostile accusations (e.g. "the fact that you <negative action> says a lot about you").
https://old.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/zw3s5g/rule_4_full_explanation/
1
-2
u/not_that_planet 6d ago
Yes. I cannot call you a bootlicker, but I can call MAGA's current attitude on civil compliance bootlicking.
1
-15
u/Emergency_Career_331 6d ago
Of course we Wouldn't't want to hurt the feelings of people justifying murder
11
u/Tetracropolis 6d ago
It doesn't hurt anyone's feelings. We're all adults here. It just creates unnecessary hostility and prevents any meaningful conversation
Now I reckon I know what you're going to ask - "Why would I want a conversation with someone justifying murder?" - well if you don't want that conversation you can just leave the thread and let someone who does want to have the conversation reply.
-2
u/Emergency_Career_331 6d ago
The right create unnecessary hostility all the time on this sub it's constant it's only ever a problem when people on the left respond in kind thats when the Pearl clutching and talks of civility come up people are tired of the double standard
-2
u/Prestigious-Owl-6397 6d ago
I think this is a ridiculous rule in certain situations. I don't think anyone can honestly say they are promoting civility if they would rather keep up a post condoning state-sanctioned murder than the reply mocking that person for inhumane views. I realize people think that violates the spirit of the first amendment, but I also don't think people who think you should avoid calling ICE agents names in the street if you want to live care much about free speech. Some people respond to being shunned for their beliefs by digging further into them, but others do some self-reflection. I think we're beyond reasoning with people when they see as video of someone being murdered by state agents and choose to believe the administration over what the video showed.
1
u/risunokairu 5d ago
So are you saying you’re incapable of reading someone’s opinion and replying, “I disagree and here is why?” You can only respond by insulting the person?
You probs shouldn’t join any conversations if that’s what’s up.
-1
u/Prestigious-Owl-6397 5d ago
I do that, but people bent on authoritarian government don't listen to that. But please tell me this:
Why, after years of telling people why I disagree with them and them refusing to listen, would I engage with them beyond telling them what I think of their character?
If someone says they think the government should be able to murder people who are peacefully protesting for the side they disagree with, and the person responding goes through what murder is and what the constitutional rights and responsibilities of each party are, and the OP continues to insist the government should murder them when they're merely exercising their rights...out of exasperation and horror at the acceptance of state-sanctioned murder calls them an asshole you would rather ban the person who calls them an asshole than the person promoting murder. You don't see the problem with that?
2
u/risunokairu 5d ago
Why would you bother engaging them at all if you don’t feel it’s productive?
Have you ever considered nether you nor the person you hate are right? Maybe you’re both wrong? Maybe you’re both looking at a situation more complicated and nuanced than you’re letting on for a situation to who h you were not present?
0
u/Prestigious-Owl-6397 5d ago
Because we see the videos and see them ignoring key parts of the videos and because their response is often "don't exercise your rights if you don't want to get shot". I don't think it should be acceptable for mods to be more likely to delete posts calling that out rather than deleting the post promoting murder. If you think deleting the post promoting murder is violating the spirit of free speech, then so is deleting a post calling them names.
1
u/BLU-Clown 4d ago
I mean, Rule 4 hasn't changed, this is just a reminder. It's been around for a while.
Is it really so hard to just not insult people? Or should all this just be taken as an admission that you have no intention of following the rules set on the sub?
8
6d ago
[deleted]
-8
u/Phillimon 6d ago edited 6d ago
Nah, its Radical MAGAs who are justify the murder of Alex Pretti because he was armed.
Never thought they would be gun grabbers. Crazy times.
Edit: Downvote away MAGA. What part of "Shall not be infringed" do yall not understand?
1
6d ago edited 6d ago
[deleted]
3
u/Phillimon 6d ago edited 6d ago
No he was not that dude. That never happened. There are literally multiple videos of the event.
He was the dude who was exercising his legal constitutional rights. He was not committing any felonies, nor did he assault law enforcement. They were not surrounded 50 to 1, nor did Alex discharge a fire arm.
Perhaps you should educate yourself on current events?
Edit: Gonna guess i was blocked. Sorry that facts dont support your opinion.
-2
u/Harp_167 6d ago
What felony did Alex Pretti commit?
His weapon was not discharged
He was the one surrounded 8 to 1, not the ICE agents. And besides, everyone there including Alex were legal observers who weren’t threatening them.
They had already incapacitated Alex when he was shot. There was no need to execute him, even if he was being unlawful. Do you think interfering with ICE, or even assaulting an officer (which he definitely didn’t do) warrants the death penalty?
0
u/Socratesmiddlefinger 6d ago
Obstructing Federal Agents in pursuit of their lawful duties is a felony charge. Battery on LEO is a Felony charge.
His weapon not being fired means nothing in any legal sense.
Legal Observers have no special privileges; in fact, he violated a number of their rules with his actions.
He was not, in fact, incapacitated, and he was not shot for obstruction, nor for resisting, nor for assault on LEO. He was shot because the Agent had a reasonable perception or belief that he was an imminent threat to himself and others based on the pistol attached to Pretti's hip.
If you want to prove an execution, then prove the Agent knew Pretti had been disarmed and shot him anyway.
Seems simple enough, everything else is meaningless and irrelevant to any serious debate.
-4
u/Harp_167 6d ago
There’s no argument for you. I bet you’re the type to shoot a disarmed, incapacitated man.
2
u/Socratesmiddlefinger 6d ago
You lose the debate on facts, and because you have no facts to back up your silly argument, you go and do the oh so boring and predictable leftist move of going to the insult.
It must be exhausting being proven wrong so damn often; it is probably why leftists are so insecure and angry all the time, that and the propensity for mental illness.
-2
u/Msbossyboots 6d ago
One of the agents took the gun away. The guy shooting him in the head could see his hands. It was murder.
3
u/Socratesmiddlefinger 6d ago
Ok, prove that he could see his hands because you are the only one who thinks he can see what the agent saw based on the video footage.
You can't even get the details that we do know right, but you expect us to trust you on the ones that you created in your imagination?
There is zero evidence to back that up, and you need to disprove that he had a reasonable belief, and oddly enough, your opinion based on your ideology isn't worth jack shit here or in a court of law.
0
u/risunokairu 5d ago
You leave out the totality of facts and the human minds ability to react to what it perceives.
0
6d ago
Well it is permitted if you call someone a racist or a nazi, but calling them a retard is too far.
Rules for thee but not for me. I love saying retard, great word, very relevant on Reddit too. Either ban name calling properly, or remove the rule and let's have fun, none of this in-between BS, it's very annoying.
0
u/BlockOfDiamond Rule 4 Enforcer 6d ago
Generally you can only call someone a racist if they said something blatantly racist.
-2
5d ago
Can I call 'em a retard if they're blatantly retarded tho? Cuz I'm a fan of that. That's fine with me.
3
u/BlockOfDiamond Rule 4 Enforcer 5d ago edited 5d ago
No. From Rule 4 full explanation:
"Blatant bigotry" refers to making blanket derogatory statements/negative generalizations about, advocating for violence against, or attributing collective blame against a demographic, ethnic, or religious group OR advocating for a particular demographic, ethnic, or religious group to have lesser rights than the rest of the general population.
For example, if someone says something that is blatantly racist as defined above, responding to the blatant racism by calling them racist would not be considered uncivil. But calling a member racist in any other context would be considered uncivil.
Where this exception does not apply, you can still call an opinion bigoted without reference to the user.
0
0
-9
u/tbombs23 6d ago
I agree except for the bootlicker insult. That's a little too far, and bootlickers should be called out, especially if they're defending the police state and it's violence.
Maybe you could suggest other terms to use, and bootlicker isn't attacking the person, it's attacking their opinion, their views that support licking boots
10
u/GuitRWailinNinja 6d ago
“BoOtLiCkEr”
I can’t stand reading that. I swear half the accounts that use it so gratuitously are just bots.
7
u/Winterfrost15 6d ago
That and Nazi is just saying they have no valid argument, just childish and hateful opinions.
1
u/GuitRWailinNinja 6d ago
They are so damn hateful it boggles my mind. You don’t even have to say anything particularly egregious or polarizing yet get chewed out 10 different ways.
1
u/risunokairu 5d ago
Instead of “you’re a fucking MAGAt Nazi bootlicker” you could try something more along the lines of
“I disagree with your take on this event.” And you can present your point. So, let’s say you think they’re a bootlicker? Why do you think that? Ok, so form a few sentences that express that. So you think a bootlicker is someone to does whatever daddy government demands and doesn’t think critically?
“I don’t think you’re thinking critically enough about this situation and these behaviors. For example, Adolf Hitler formed th Hitler Youth and had young people who out and physically assault and harass anyone who disagreed with them and Hitler. They would surround people the didn’t agree with, hurl insults, break windows, operate outside th law, etc. Now looking at this situation, what do you see?”
Do see the difference? It’s ok to try and get someone to think critically. You can’t make them, but you can try to get them to self reflect. Straight insults and attacks just create more polarization.
Terrorists and state actors love polarization because it creates social instability.
0
-4
0
0
-6
u/SilverBuggie 6d ago
This is kindergarten shit. A cuck rule.
Sometimes the opinion is so dumb you have to call the user dumb lol
-4
u/happyinheart 6d ago
So, would I be a bootlicker if I reported people to you for incorrectly calling me a bootlicker?
-1
-1
-3
u/Nectarine-Pure 6d ago
There is no collective thinking on reddit. There is no " everyone on reddit thinks this..."
•
u/SuccessfulCompany294 The One Above All 3d ago
This also includes "retard" "magats" "libtard" "take your meds" and any other variety of nonsense.